Anyone can become Richard Milhous Nixon. They mass-produce the little masks and sell them during Halloween. In 2008’s Frost/Nixon, Frank Langella becomes the notorious ex-president almost as well as Nixon himself, complete with a prosthetic nose and several pounds of Hollywood makeup. But it wasn’t just a mask – Langella captured the core of Nixon, a broken-down old man who feels remorse for the Watergate scandal. Only, what actually happened is much different.
The fallen president has recently resigned from office. He’s old, fat and discouraged about retiring until David Frost (Michael Sheen) baits Nixon with a surplus of cash in return for an unscripted interview. Nixon takes the money like a greedy child.
Frost, with his sculpted hair, plastic smile and oblivious attitude can’t get anyone to take him seriously, not even the audience in some cases. Because Frost had just been canned from his popular talk show, the Nixon interview was just a way for the unemployed man to make himself famous and meaningful again, but even Frost doesn’t seem incredibly concerned with the outcome.
For months, Frost’s team of investigators prepared hard-hitting questions to “take Nixon down,” implying that this vendetta is what America needed to move on. Frost picked some intelligent companions who uncover some damning evidence, but Frost also chose boring and two-dimensional people. Sam Rockwell plays the underdeveloped James Reston Jr. who’s only personality trait is getting angry about the former president. Executive editor Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt) sits in the back, quietly sulking, occasionally angry about Nixon. Even John Birt (Matthew Macfayden) only defends Frost’s every boneheaded move and again, gets angry about Nixon.
The rest of the cast are forgettable, including whatever chick Frost was boning and Nixon’s uptight aides. Director Ron Howard truly only invested in Frost and Nixon, pitting them against each other to make the interview seem of extreme importance.
Historically, the interviews were insignificant in the sense that they didn’t change anything and were mostly forgotten. And watching the original tapes is little more than two boring people talking candidly. Unlike the drama on screen, Nixon almost never raised his voice and Frost’s stoic face never cracked.
The movie doesn’t mention that Frost interviewed Nixon almost ten years prior to the big one. In 1968, Frost visited the White House with his mother, celebrating Christmas with the Nixons for a campy fluff piece on how great America is. The interview was bland and lifeless, and that attitude didn’t change much by 1977.
Even what the interviews were supposed to signify was lackluster. Ford had already pardoned Nixon, so admitting guilt in Watergate would have done nothing. Besides, Nixon never did admit guilt, unlike what the melodrama in the film suggested.
All the interview did was line the pockets of an old, retired thief. All the movie did was make an unimportant debate seem like a justice was finally brought forth. It wasn’t.
But Ron Howard’s creation came out just after Obama was sworn into office, which wasn’t mere coincidence. In interviews and DVD featurettes, Howard compared Nixon’s abuse of power to President Bush’s similar administration. Howard was hoping to encourage a repeat in history, perhaps with a different ending.
So far this hasn’t happened, but if it does, one can expect the same results. Why would anybody expect a president, let alone anyone, admit to felonies and treason on national television? The Frost/Nixon interviews weren’t exactly Judge Judy. Bush would make the same excuses for his civilian-bombing wars, wiretapping and abuses of power that Nixon did. And Bush would also get away with it, several million dollars richer.
Broadcast journalism employs a lot of theatrics, but the leaps and bounds Frost/Nixon makes in the fact department are absurd. First of all, what’s with all the pseudo-documentary interviews with characters in-between scenes? It’s as if the drama couldn’t speak for itself, so Howard gave his spiritless supporting actors a couple more lines to explain the plot, all while inaccurately representing the real people they were based on.
The tension-building phone call between Nixon and Frost never happened, but from the screenwriter’s point of view, it makes sense to include it. It made the final interview seem like a bloodthirsty fight to the finish, pumping up the action so the climax was more rewarding. But one question remains: if they original story didn’t have enough action to begin with, so much that you have to falsify history to include excitement, why make a movie about it at all?
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
15.11.07
The Role of Journalism in Democracy
I’m a pacifist and so is my friend who is majoring in Nuclear Physics. In the future, he will help design rockets, missiles and other nasty projectiles. He once told me he felt guilty that he is going to help create weapons of mass destruction, and I told him to shut up. I’m majoring in journalism, I said, and words have killed way more people than bombs ever have.
Perhaps people have forgotten how potent the press can be. Long, bloody wars have been started because of the written word. The Yellow Press encouraged the Spanish-American War. Mein Kampf was Hitler’s ladder to power. The Communist Manifesto gave Lenin the push he needed. Yes, in the wrong hands, the written word has killed many.
Indeed, journalists need to be mindful of what they publish. It is often all too easy to influence the world with even the simplest reporting. In recent history there have been enumerous junk science reports that caused panic over nothing. Examples are SARS, the West Nile Virus, Anthrax, the Y2K virus, and the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
All of these scares had some truth in them, that’s for certain, but it doesn’t explain why all of these issues were blown out of proportion. The consequences were loss of large amounts of money and at times, loss of life.
The role of journalism in a democratic society is to report the truth, with minimal harm, and no outside interest. It should also be held accountable to its readers. Journalists are not filling this role by reporting half-truths that send people into a panic.
Those in the media will apologize for spelling and grammatical errors, but no one apologized for these outrageous hypes. The media continues to go unchecked, still spreading fear and propaganda without remorse. Perhaps these are all innocent mistakes, but that doesn’t change what happened.
I don’t think issues are exaggerated on purpose. I do think the media needs to man up their mistakes. If an issue was not a threat as previously thought, apologize. Next time, be careful how you word or place your article. There may be a range of ideas why the media doesn’t do this. First, it may make them seem without credibility. Second, reporting mistakes doesn’t grab as many viewers or readers as reporting an incredible new threat. If you want to make money, advertise something that scares people into buying it.
If this is done unintentionally, it could be a simple matter of what events get the most coverage, the slant and tone of a story, where the subject is published, and how it is treated graphically. The best way to illustrate this is to give an example.
Second to the Iraq invasion, global warming is the biggest issue in today’s news. It often gets more coverage than suicide bombings or genocide. The focus is no longer on lives being lost on foreign soil, but on the weather, of all things.
From a scientific point of view, the earth has been warming, but a little more than a degree. The theory is that levels of carbon dioxide, which are released into the air by car exhaust or coal power plants are causing the planet to heat. This is a problem because the polar ice caps will melt and flood the planet, although this detail is incorrect because melting sea ice does not actually raise ocean levels.
No one knows whether the earth is being warmed by human activity or not. There is no proof either way. Still, the media presents this issue one-sided and does not address the other holes in this theory.
The Earth’s atmosphere is a combination of Nitrogen and Oxygen, which makes up 99 percent of it. The other gases are argon, neon, helium, krypton, xenon, and hydrogen. These are labeled as permanent gases while water vapor, ozone, aerosols, nitrous oxides, methane and carbon dioxide are labeled variable gases.
Carbon dioxide makes up 0.0375 percent of the atmosphere. To picture this, imagine you had 10 liters of black sand that averages you about 1.5 million grains. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to 3 grains of sand, or 1 per 500,000 grains. Can levels of something so small really be the cause of a global epidemic? Well, if levels are rising, perhaps. But are they rising? Do not forget, CO2 levels fluxuate as well as the average global temperature. No one on either side can generalize, because we do not know enough about our own environment.
Simply put, no one knows what is causing global warming, and no one knows if “greenhouse gases” cause it either. We know that the earth has risen in temperature by one degree. Is that really so big that everyone should panic and drive hybrids?
There isn’t a lot of conclusive data on global warming, yet the media continues to publish data about it as if it were fact and not speculation or theory. Even attempts at diversifying the issue are poor. I reference the August 13th, 2007 article “The Truth About Denial” in Newsweek. The article called itself a balanced look at the debate on global warming and was anything but fair. It attacked anyone who was a “global warming denier” as either stupid, ignoring facts, or that their research was funded by industry.
The irony in all this is that none of the “deniers” claimed global warming was nonexistent, just not caused by human beings. So far, this is true. According to Newsmax, “the expenditure of more than $U.S.50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one." It goes on to say that skeptics receive only $19 million in funding a year. Compare that to the $50 billion other climatologists receive and it doesn’t seem like “balanced journalism” to be pointing fingers about funding.
This article is only one example of an entire movement of incorrect portrayal of the facts. The November 11, 2007 edition of the Arizona Republic was another such article about global warming skeptics. The newspaper painted them as people who are ignoring facts and hyping on details. It was a front page article that took precedence over six United States troops being killed in Afghanistan. That’s right, opinion is more front-page news than human life.
In general, this type of reporting on global warming clearly goes against the SBJ Code of Ethics. This type of reporting does not “test the accuracy of information from all sources” or “exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.” This type of reporting does not “support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant”. This type of reporting does not “distinguish between advocacy and news reporting”. I find reporting like this dangerous and irresponsible, if it’s reporting at all.
Unless newspapers change their attitude about how they report global warming it will just be like with Y2K, everyone panicking, buying up the bottled water, bunkering down for a non-existent crisis. The role of a newspaper in Democracy is to report fact as fact, speculation as speculation and hold itself responsible for what it publishes. If not, we can expect the same cycles of fear and embarrassment, we can expect large loss of money, we can even expect the loss of life. The fact is, the power of writing is not something to take lightly.
Sources:
Blodgett, H. Robert & Keller, Edward A.,(2006). Natural Hazards. Pearson Education, Inc.
McKinnon, Shaun. (2007, November 11). Skeptics Raise Doubt on Global Warming. The Arizona Republic, p. 1
Morano, Mark. (2007, August 6). Newsweek’s Global Warming Blunder. Newsmax,. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/100434.shtml.
Purtill, Corinne. (2007, November 11). Outspoken ASU Prof draws ire. The Arizona Republic, p. 1
Walsh, Bryan (2007, October 15).Meltdown. Time, 170, 16.
Perhaps people have forgotten how potent the press can be. Long, bloody wars have been started because of the written word. The Yellow Press encouraged the Spanish-American War. Mein Kampf was Hitler’s ladder to power. The Communist Manifesto gave Lenin the push he needed. Yes, in the wrong hands, the written word has killed many.
Indeed, journalists need to be mindful of what they publish. It is often all too easy to influence the world with even the simplest reporting. In recent history there have been enumerous junk science reports that caused panic over nothing. Examples are SARS, the West Nile Virus, Anthrax, the Y2K virus, and the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
All of these scares had some truth in them, that’s for certain, but it doesn’t explain why all of these issues were blown out of proportion. The consequences were loss of large amounts of money and at times, loss of life.
The role of journalism in a democratic society is to report the truth, with minimal harm, and no outside interest. It should also be held accountable to its readers. Journalists are not filling this role by reporting half-truths that send people into a panic.
Those in the media will apologize for spelling and grammatical errors, but no one apologized for these outrageous hypes. The media continues to go unchecked, still spreading fear and propaganda without remorse. Perhaps these are all innocent mistakes, but that doesn’t change what happened.
I don’t think issues are exaggerated on purpose. I do think the media needs to man up their mistakes. If an issue was not a threat as previously thought, apologize. Next time, be careful how you word or place your article. There may be a range of ideas why the media doesn’t do this. First, it may make them seem without credibility. Second, reporting mistakes doesn’t grab as many viewers or readers as reporting an incredible new threat. If you want to make money, advertise something that scares people into buying it.
If this is done unintentionally, it could be a simple matter of what events get the most coverage, the slant and tone of a story, where the subject is published, and how it is treated graphically. The best way to illustrate this is to give an example.
Second to the Iraq invasion, global warming is the biggest issue in today’s news. It often gets more coverage than suicide bombings or genocide. The focus is no longer on lives being lost on foreign soil, but on the weather, of all things.
From a scientific point of view, the earth has been warming, but a little more than a degree. The theory is that levels of carbon dioxide, which are released into the air by car exhaust or coal power plants are causing the planet to heat. This is a problem because the polar ice caps will melt and flood the planet, although this detail is incorrect because melting sea ice does not actually raise ocean levels.
No one knows whether the earth is being warmed by human activity or not. There is no proof either way. Still, the media presents this issue one-sided and does not address the other holes in this theory.
The Earth’s atmosphere is a combination of Nitrogen and Oxygen, which makes up 99 percent of it. The other gases are argon, neon, helium, krypton, xenon, and hydrogen. These are labeled as permanent gases while water vapor, ozone, aerosols, nitrous oxides, methane and carbon dioxide are labeled variable gases.
Carbon dioxide makes up 0.0375 percent of the atmosphere. To picture this, imagine you had 10 liters of black sand that averages you about 1.5 million grains. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to 3 grains of sand, or 1 per 500,000 grains. Can levels of something so small really be the cause of a global epidemic? Well, if levels are rising, perhaps. But are they rising? Do not forget, CO2 levels fluxuate as well as the average global temperature. No one on either side can generalize, because we do not know enough about our own environment.
Simply put, no one knows what is causing global warming, and no one knows if “greenhouse gases” cause it either. We know that the earth has risen in temperature by one degree. Is that really so big that everyone should panic and drive hybrids?
There isn’t a lot of conclusive data on global warming, yet the media continues to publish data about it as if it were fact and not speculation or theory. Even attempts at diversifying the issue are poor. I reference the August 13th, 2007 article “The Truth About Denial” in Newsweek. The article called itself a balanced look at the debate on global warming and was anything but fair. It attacked anyone who was a “global warming denier” as either stupid, ignoring facts, or that their research was funded by industry.
The irony in all this is that none of the “deniers” claimed global warming was nonexistent, just not caused by human beings. So far, this is true. According to Newsmax, “the expenditure of more than $U.S.50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one." It goes on to say that skeptics receive only $19 million in funding a year. Compare that to the $50 billion other climatologists receive and it doesn’t seem like “balanced journalism” to be pointing fingers about funding.
This article is only one example of an entire movement of incorrect portrayal of the facts. The November 11, 2007 edition of the Arizona Republic was another such article about global warming skeptics. The newspaper painted them as people who are ignoring facts and hyping on details. It was a front page article that took precedence over six United States troops being killed in Afghanistan. That’s right, opinion is more front-page news than human life.
In general, this type of reporting on global warming clearly goes against the SBJ Code of Ethics. This type of reporting does not “test the accuracy of information from all sources” or “exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.” This type of reporting does not “support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant”. This type of reporting does not “distinguish between advocacy and news reporting”. I find reporting like this dangerous and irresponsible, if it’s reporting at all.
Unless newspapers change their attitude about how they report global warming it will just be like with Y2K, everyone panicking, buying up the bottled water, bunkering down for a non-existent crisis. The role of a newspaper in Democracy is to report fact as fact, speculation as speculation and hold itself responsible for what it publishes. If not, we can expect the same cycles of fear and embarrassment, we can expect large loss of money, we can even expect the loss of life. The fact is, the power of writing is not something to take lightly.
Sources:
Blodgett, H. Robert & Keller, Edward A.,(2006). Natural Hazards. Pearson Education, Inc.
McKinnon, Shaun. (2007, November 11). Skeptics Raise Doubt on Global Warming. The Arizona Republic, p. 1
Morano, Mark. (2007, August 6). Newsweek’s Global Warming Blunder. Newsmax,. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/100434.shtml.
Purtill, Corinne. (2007, November 11). Outspoken ASU Prof draws ire. The Arizona Republic, p. 1
Walsh, Bryan (2007, October 15).Meltdown. Time, 170, 16.
8.10.07
Catatonic
Alternate title for this blog could have been "Passive", since this is mostly a vague reference to the APC song.
The lyrics in the song "cold and catatonic" stick out to me each time I hear it.
There are a billion well-placed swearwords scattered throughout this entry.
If they offend you, GOOD. That's the whole FUCKING point of this blog.
To offend you, get under your skin, break your perfect little consciousness into pieces.
Well, my major is journalism. In case you didn't know or guess. I've become all stupid about this. Excited. Shitfaced. I've become like every other stupid, idealistic college student who thinks that because their attending university they can change the world. I look around me on campus and I see all these angry teenagers trying too hard. Fresh out of high school and their angtsy, antsy hormones pressure them to cast the first stones. They recycle or rally or paint or . . . write blogs. I judge them, but it's okay in my mind because I'm just as bad.
Duh.
I've started analyzing my behavior as either "journalistic" or not. The fact that I carry pen and notebook around with me everywhere makes me journalistic. Writing about 3 blogs a day, (no kidding), but only publishing about one, makes me journalistic. I stopped listening to my headphones in public so that I can listen to the sounds around me and take it all in. This is journalistic.
Someone asked what I was writing in my notebook. She said I must be paying lots of attention, I must be very observant. This is journalistic.
But I read very slowly now. I'm more late than early. I am failing more journalism classes than math classes. This is very unjournalistic.
I am making these observations because I am testing myself. I want to see if I have what it takes. And I adjust my behavior, to fit this ideal of "journalism", because this is my shitfaced dream, this is how I am changing the world, by destroying myself and becoming a "cold and catonic" android of information.
Today in JLS 130 I was told to write a lead for a police report. First my professor told us two basic types of leads. There is the inverted pyramid, which is all the important information at the top, boring details at the bottom. I was the only one in class who knew that. The second is the "anecdotal lead". You start out with a short story, then add a bunch of facts that make your readers care. That part is called the "Nut Graph", I think. My professor says, if you don't have one of those, then you don't really have a story.
It's best to give a small example. David smokes and dies of cancer. Why do you care? Because XX percent of people die from cancer each year. That's it.
This entry would be considered "anecdotal".
I read this actual police report, which I still have and never plan on throwing it away. I inhaled with excitement when it was placed on my desk, that is, and I started writing right away. Then I started to feel sick . . .
The narrative, the anonymous "cold and catatonic" voice of Officer X detailed a disgusting, horrible car accident involving six teenagers. There were details no one would ever publish in any paper, about how the bodies were strewn from the car, how this one teenager was screaming in agony as the paramedics assisted him. He screamed, "don't leave me", and they rushed him to the hospital. He died before he made it.
There were 90 pages of detailed information. My professor only gave us 2. This car accident that happened less than a month ago. Reading how this happened on Jennifer Miller's 16th birthday, she and her friends got shitfaced and drove 120MPH into a tree, I wanted to cry. I was horrified. Miller, as far as I know, was the only one to survive.
But I had to finish the assignment. I sucked it in and wrote it. I stuffed emotion. I'm no longer grossed out. Fuck, I've seen worse movies than this report. This "cold and catatonic" attitude, to me, was very journalistic. Or maybe just normal.
And I wrote a lead. And to me, it sucked. I was pressured, I wasn't doing an outline at all, blah blah blah. I don't mind, it was just practice, right? If I do become a journalist I will be doing this shit for a paycheck.
This blog. . . I forget the point. It's anecdotal, but there's no "nut graph". I have no reason for making you care. That means this writing sucks.
That means that this is very unjournalistic.
The lyrics in the song "cold and catatonic" stick out to me each time I hear it.
There are a billion well-placed swearwords scattered throughout this entry.
If they offend you, GOOD. That's the whole FUCKING point of this blog.
To offend you, get under your skin, break your perfect little consciousness into pieces.
Well, my major is journalism. In case you didn't know or guess. I've become all stupid about this. Excited. Shitfaced. I've become like every other stupid, idealistic college student who thinks that because their attending university they can change the world. I look around me on campus and I see all these angry teenagers trying too hard. Fresh out of high school and their angtsy, antsy hormones pressure them to cast the first stones. They recycle or rally or paint or . . . write blogs. I judge them, but it's okay in my mind because I'm just as bad.
Duh.
I've started analyzing my behavior as either "journalistic" or not. The fact that I carry pen and notebook around with me everywhere makes me journalistic. Writing about 3 blogs a day, (no kidding), but only publishing about one, makes me journalistic. I stopped listening to my headphones in public so that I can listen to the sounds around me and take it all in. This is journalistic.
Someone asked what I was writing in my notebook. She said I must be paying lots of attention, I must be very observant. This is journalistic.
But I read very slowly now. I'm more late than early. I am failing more journalism classes than math classes. This is very unjournalistic.
I am making these observations because I am testing myself. I want to see if I have what it takes. And I adjust my behavior, to fit this ideal of "journalism", because this is my shitfaced dream, this is how I am changing the world, by destroying myself and becoming a "cold and catonic" android of information.
Today in JLS 130 I was told to write a lead for a police report. First my professor told us two basic types of leads. There is the inverted pyramid, which is all the important information at the top, boring details at the bottom. I was the only one in class who knew that. The second is the "anecdotal lead". You start out with a short story, then add a bunch of facts that make your readers care. That part is called the "Nut Graph", I think. My professor says, if you don't have one of those, then you don't really have a story.
It's best to give a small example. David smokes and dies of cancer. Why do you care? Because XX percent of people die from cancer each year. That's it.
This entry would be considered "anecdotal".
I read this actual police report, which I still have and never plan on throwing it away. I inhaled with excitement when it was placed on my desk, that is, and I started writing right away. Then I started to feel sick . . .
The narrative, the anonymous "cold and catatonic" voice of Officer X detailed a disgusting, horrible car accident involving six teenagers. There were details no one would ever publish in any paper, about how the bodies were strewn from the car, how this one teenager was screaming in agony as the paramedics assisted him. He screamed, "don't leave me", and they rushed him to the hospital. He died before he made it.
There were 90 pages of detailed information. My professor only gave us 2. This car accident that happened less than a month ago. Reading how this happened on Jennifer Miller's 16th birthday, she and her friends got shitfaced and drove 120MPH into a tree, I wanted to cry. I was horrified. Miller, as far as I know, was the only one to survive.
But I had to finish the assignment. I sucked it in and wrote it. I stuffed emotion. I'm no longer grossed out. Fuck, I've seen worse movies than this report. This "cold and catatonic" attitude, to me, was very journalistic. Or maybe just normal.
And I wrote a lead. And to me, it sucked. I was pressured, I wasn't doing an outline at all, blah blah blah. I don't mind, it was just practice, right? If I do become a journalist I will be doing this shit for a paycheck.
This blog. . . I forget the point. It's anecdotal, but there's no "nut graph". I have no reason for making you care. That means this writing sucks.
That means that this is very unjournalistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)